Recruiting Forum Off Topic Thread III

[Bassmaster_Vol]

I struggle mightily with this notion. I get what the Bible says about it.

I also think it's used quite literally, and to the detriment of what the intent behind it.

The intent behind what? The Bible claims very clearly that there is one person and one message that leads to life. One. The entire New Testament is about Christ and the apostles giving their lives proclaiming that one message. But you’re telling me that to live as they did is a detriment. Should I obey you or my Lord?

 

[Ulysees E. McGill]

Nope. As great as you think you are, you aren't more valuable than other animals. We are all organisms that belong to Kingdom Animalia.

No sanctity of human life? Do you have any loved ones? I hope that you don't think a bugs life is more valuable to me than your mothers.

 

[Darth_Shiveman]

So you have no more value than a cow then? Or a pig? Or even a rat?

That’s a fallacious non-sequitur.

 

[VolunteerVandiver]

Bass, who are the PhD scientists you mentioned on your website? I saw no credentials or citations.

 

[VolunteerVandiver]

No sanctity of human life? Do you have any loved ones? I hope that you don't think a bugs life is more valuable to me than your mothers.

Well yes, because we are humans. My perception however is unimportant. What you value more or less doesn't matter either. The fact is that we are all animals.

 

[Darth_Shiveman]

No sanctity of human life? Do you have any loved ones? I hope that you don't think a bugs life is more valuable to me than your mothers.

I’m assuming he means innate meaning and value, not de facto meaning and value.

 

[Bassmaster_Vol]

That’s a fallacious non-sequitur.

No it isn’t. You said we’re animals. Those are animals. Are we the same? Simple question

 

[Ulysees E. McGill]

That’s a fallacious non-sequitur.

He is right, that is what lies at the end of that path.

 

[Ulysees E. McGill]

I’m assuming he means innate meaning and value, not de facto meaning and value.

I'm taking him at his word.

 

[Bassmaster_Vol]

Bass, who are the PhD scientists you mentioned on your website? I saw no credentials or citations.

Who we are: the people involved - creation.com

 

[VolunteerVandiver]

No it isn’t. You said we’re animals. Those are animals. Are we the same? Simple question

Yes, we are the same in that we are animals.

Clearly humans value humans the most, as we are very biased and there is a lot at stake for us.

 

[chargervol]

Good work Bass.

The first part took very few words to refute, as where the last 2 were easily debated but they honestly just weren't worth at 11:00 pm.
Anyone that believes humans aren't capable of a sense of right and wrong simply because of higher thinking, are just determined to be in denial about the subject.

 

[jakez4ut]

The intent behind what? The Bible claims very clearly that there is one person and one message that leads to life. One. The entire New Testament is about Christ and the apostles giving their lives proclaiming that one message. But you’re telling me that to live as they did is a detriment. Should I obey you or my Lord?

well, i didn't say any of that. so no. but this goes to my point about the literal.

the message you send is antagonistic, by design. that's not the intent.

 

[Darth_Shiveman]

No it isn’t. You said we’re animals. Those are animals. Are we the same? Simple question

It definitely is.

We are animals does not directly lead to “a human life is worth no more than a rat!”

There are lots of different types of animals, all have different utility and proscribed value.

 

[Bassmaster_Vol]

.
Anyone that believes humans aren't capable of a sense of right and wrong simply because of higher thinking, are just determined to be in denial about the subject.

I never said this. In fact I would argue the opposite. You do have a sense of right and wrong, and you have that because you were made in the image of God. There is no evolutionary explanation or reason for morality. None

 

[Bassmaster_Vol]

well, i didn't say any of that. so no. but this goes to my point about the literal.

the message you send is antagonistic, by design. that's not the intent.

I challenge the statement that I have been the one who has been antagonistic in these discussions.

 

[chargervol]

It definitely is.

We are animals does not directly lead to “a human life is worth no more than a rat!”

There are lots of different types of animals, all have different utility and proscribed value.

Yep.
I put a higher value on my dogs life than an Opossum. Doesn't mean my dog isn't an animal.

 

[Ulysees E. McGill]

Well yes, because we are humans. My perception however is unimportant. What you value more or less doesn't matter either. The fact is that we are all animals.

I believe in the divine spark, you think we are all just sacks of flesh, blood and bone. But I bet if your mother or close loved one was in a burning building, and I was there that I would risk my life to save them...which I most definitely would...because I have the ability for abstract thought. I would sacrifice my life for others

 

[Darth_Shiveman]

He is right, that is what lies at the end of that path.

Only if you decide so before really working through the question itself logically, step by step.

 

[delfonic]

I challenge the statement that I have been the one who has been antagonistic in these discussions.

Telling someone else that what they believe is wrong is antagonistic. I mean, you've not been hostile but you've certainly opposed folks in the discussion.

an·tag·o·nist
anˈtaɡənəst/
noun
noun: antagonist; plural noun: antagonists

a person who actively opposes or is hostile to someone or something; an adversary.

 

[Bassmaster_Vol]

It definitely is.

We are animals does not directly lead to “a human life is worth no more than a rat!”

There are lots of different types of animals, all have different utility and proscribed value.

Why? If we’re animals, what reason is there to assume that I am more valuable than a rodent? Most evolutionists would agree with me here. Nietsche would for sure. I’m sure Dawkins probably would as well. It was blind luck and chance that we evolved our brains. It could have gone the other way and the rats could be ruling if they had evolved differently. So why am i more valuable?

 

[Ulysees E. McGill]

The first part took very few words to refute, as where the last 2 were easily debated but they honestly just weren't worth at 11:00 pm.
Anyone that believes humans aren't capable of a sense of right and wrong simply because of higher thinking, are just determined to be in denial about the subject.

I absolutely disagree.

 

[Bassmaster_Vol]

Yep.
I put a higher value on my dogs life than an Opossum. Doesn't mean my dog isn't an animal.

But you have no objective reason to. You do it because it feels right to you. Not because there is a reason or standard you can point to.

That’s the point

 

[Ulysees E. McGill]

Only if you decide so before really working through the question itself logically, step by step.

No.

 

[Bassmaster_Vol]

Telling someone else that what they believe is wrong is antagonistic. I mean, you've not been hostile but you've certainly opposed folks in the discussion.

an·tag·o·nist
anˈtaɡənəst/
noun
noun: antagonist; plural noun: antagonists

a person who actively opposes or is hostile to someone or something; an adversary.

As is clear in the definition, antagonism involves hostility. I have not been hostile. The people I am debating clearly believe that I am wrong too. This is why it’s called a debate.

Asking me to admit the possibility of being wrong is to ask me to admit that it is possible that God doesn’t exist and that Christ really isn’t the Messiah.

I won’t. I can’t.